“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” stated Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

Serious constitutional concerns have been consistently raised about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, known popularly as “ObamaCare”), passed by Congress in 2010. Twenty-seven states have sued the federal government on the grounds that Congress does not have authority to require their citizens to purchase a specific product or service, in this case, health insurance. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear some of these cases in March and presumably will rule on the constitutionality of the PPACA’s so-called individual mandate by the end of June.

Beyond this fundamental constitutional objection, another aspect of the PPACA recently took a disturbing turn. In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directed virtually all employers to include coverage of contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals without copayment in their employee insurance policies. The HHS mandate has an extremely narrow conscience exemption that will not include the vast majority of religiously affiliated employers and institutions, including hospitals, colleges, schools, and social service organizations which may object to these services on moral grounds.

So, not only does the PPACA require all Americans to purchase health coverage, but Americans can be forced to pay for―or to provide as employers and insurers―things their faith may teach are wrong.

The Catholic Church, along with faithful of other religious communities, protested. The Administration has not backed down. In fact, on January 20, 2012 President Obama called Archbishop Dolan to inform him that the conscience exemption will not be broadened. Enforcement of the mandate simply will be delayed until August 2013, at which time insurance coverage of “preventive services” must include all FDA-approved forms of contraception, including sterilization and some abortion-inducing drugs.

“In effect,” Dolan said publicly in response, “the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Opponents of the HHS mandate stress that it is very troubling for the government to attempt to force members of one of the largest religions in the world, the Catholic Church, to directly participate in what their Church considers grave moral evils. If Catholic institutions can be forced to behave in contradiction to their moral beliefs, pay massive fines to the government, or close their doors, no other group can expect to have its “free exercise” of religion protected, either.

Members of the current Administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have begun referring to the First Amendment right to “free exercise” of religion as “freedom of worship.” This is dangerously incomplete. “Free exercise” of religion is more than the ability to choose the house of worship one frequents on weekends. Free exercise is the ability to live your faith and morals seven days a week.

Members of Congress have introduced legislation intended to prohibit the federal government from requiring a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific health care service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions (the “Respect for the Rights of Conscience Act,” or House Resolution 1179/Senate Bill 1467). But while Congressional leaders work to defend the rights of religiously affiliated organizations, they must not forget the rights of individual Americans, either.

Americans must send the federal government a clear message: Government must not abrogate the conscience rights of employers and insurance providers, and neither should it abridge the First Amendment rights of individual Americans by forcing them to participate in something to which they morally object. It was a small step from government forcing Americans to “go out into the marketplace” and buy health care to, as Archbishop Dolan said, “go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.”

Update: On Thursday, the Eternal Word Television Network became the first Catholic organization to file suit to stop the contraception mandate since the final HHS rules were published by the Obama administration on January 20, 2012. The lawsuit was filed on EWTN’s behalf by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Update: On Friday, the Obama Administrationannounced a change in the contraception mandate which would shift the mandate from employers to insurers. Religious employers would not be required to offer their employees plans including contraception, but insurance providers must provide contraceptive services free of charge to women regardless of whether or not the services are covered by their employers’ plan. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) criticized the move as “a political manipulation.” Developing…
Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

First of all, the best way to balance the budget is to reduce the number of people getting money from the government. The best way to do that is to kill people before they are born as it is much harder to kill them after they are born. Hence, this joke of a policy.

Ramalama

Why does the Catholic Church have any say on sexual matters? This is an organization that rails against consensual non-marital sex, yet enabled abusive, illegal sex for decades.

The Catholic Church should thank their lucky stars that they haven’t had their entire leadership thrown in the slammer and shut up.

http://twitter.com/KirkFraser Kirk Fraser

I believe there is a better take on it. First is the background of what is truly church and what is not. Church is believing in and obeying Jesus Christ in spirit and truth, starting with the Gospel and growing toward His absolute perfection in everything including miracles except claiming to be Jesus. Catholicism and its daughters are defined in Rev. 17:5, 18:4 as not church but prostitutes God tells believers to exit, making their claim of being church a fraud. From that foundation, it is easy to see the business of Catholic hospitals is by definition not Christian. Thus their balking at the President’s order on the basis of being a Constitutionally protected class is irrelevant for they do not qualify.

Now the argument which does have value is forcing people to buy something that violates their consciences. That is both unchristian and unamerican since America is a Christian nation as defined in the US Constitution, article 7, where the dates incorporate the entire text of the Bible and the Declaration of Independence (with its divine providence clause) into the Constitution as established law by reference. Therefore Obama has overstepped the authority of his office much as Satan overstepped the authority of God’s throne and is being deposed.

What exactly does it mean to say “America is a Christian nation,” since a nation is a non-corporeal entity? It citizens are forced to obey rules as promulgated by Christian philosophy, even if they aren’t Christians? That is the exact definition of a theocracy….

3H

Article 7 reads as follows: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the
States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present
the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence
of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof
We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

That does not define the United States as a Christian nation. No where is it explicitly stated that the United States is a Christian Nation. No where.

The phrase “in the the year of our Lord” is formulaic, and should not be taken as an overt declaration that the United States is a Christian Nation.

David Appell

As an atheist I’m offended by the government’s favorable tax treatment for those who believe in a magic man in the sky. Where can I get a refund on the extra taxes I’m paying because they aren’t?

JoelinPDX

As an atheist David, you should be the one who most opposes the Obozo Administration here. If they can force people to go against the teachings of their faiths, the next thing they can do is force you to believe in something you find foolish.

David Appell

I am already forced to do things against my beliefs, such as accommodate to the preferential treatment given to religious institutions on taxes, institutional bigotry, etc. If I’m forced to accept those, why aren’t they forced to accommodate the full health care needs of women?

JoelinPDX

So, are you saying you’re ready to deal?

David Appell

I am saying…. Oh, never mind. You’ll just call someone a 3rd-grade name again and blather more incoherency. I’d rather not waste the time replying.

JoelinPDX

Don’t drown David…I mean, this is Oregon and with your nose being held so high…..

David Appell

Yes, I certainly do hold my nose high to cretins who insist on 3rd-grade name-calling for the President and unions and others — and, to boot, who even seem proud of it….. If any of the G-Damned Liberals did that you and the other conservatives here would shit a brick jumping up and down in indignation.

When you’re ready to converse like an adult, Joel, let me know….

Ramalama

“JoelinPDX” regularly violates Oregon Catalyst’s policy for commenting, yet they have chosen not to ban him.

1) The Bishops are ok with “Catholic” universities and hospitals, financed and administered outside the church, with paying their Christian, Muslim, Jewish and secular employees money that can be used to buy contraceptives. This doesn’t violate the Catholic faith.

2) They are ok with the 28 states that already require health insurance benefits (which is also pay for work) to include contraceptive benefits. THis apparently doesn’t violate their Catholic faith.

3) But if a new federal law extends this requirement to all states, we now have a war on Catholicism over an issue, contraception, that they can’t even convince their own flock to agree with them on.

Can someone explain the logic here?

Bob Clark

I should think the courts would strike down this administrative requirement as the U.S Supreme Court recently ruled (I believe almost unanmously) churches may discriminate in their employee hiring practices based on the religious beliefs of the prospective employee. Here it would seem the same principle would apply in that a faith based health organization should be able to discriminate in the products they purchase even if for resale.

But putting religion aside, requiring citizens to buy coverage and services they don’t require (like birth control for senior citizens, transgender sex operations, pediatric care for senior citizens just to name a few) is almost always economically inefficient. It’s much more efficient to deal with equality through government taxation and spending programs. Freedom of Choice is America. ObamaCare and the Oregon state health programs are anti-American. We are increasingly burdened and oppressed by the whims and dictates of our bought and paid for “representatives” and their administrators. This is what spirited the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity in November 2010 to a wave of victories; and may it stay strong this coming November ’12.

Democrat Senators seeking re-election should be pressed to pass “Respect for the rights of conscience act.” If they don’t, the GOP may have a much greater opportunity to retake the Senate and nullify dictator-like Obama. Not sure the current slate of GOP presidential candidates can do the difficult and defeat an incumbent president in a period of economic growth (albeit subpar economic growth). Focus: Senate.

3H

“I should think the courts would strike down this administrative
requirement as the U.S Supreme Court recently ruled (I believe almost
unanmously) churches may discriminate in their employee hiring practices
based on the religious beliefs of the prospective employee.”

So.. requiring someone to either join a Union or pay fair-share in a closed union shop is bad because it tramples on their Right to Work?

But… refusing to consider someone for employment because they are Jewish, or because they converted to a new faith different from that of their employer is just fine? What about their Right to Work?

For those people to use, and agree with, the term “Right to Work.” Would you be willing to elaborate and even articulate what is a Right to Work? Because if it is only narrowly defined to Unions, and closed Union shops, it is not a right and you need to drop that term instead of pretending that you are operating from some intellectual, ethical, or moral high ground.

JoelinPDX

Wow! Now there’s a stretch.

3H

No fooling.. the whole Right to Work thing is a stretch, right?

JoelinPDX

The way you think 3, I’m sure it is.

3H

I’m right with ya X. And I agree.. it’s so obvious. It’s not often that you agree with me, so I appreciate your willingness to go the extra mile.

valley person

I believe Bob, that ruling only applied to employees who’s mission was religious. Its hard to argue that a secular nurse or doctor who happens to work for a nominally Catholic hospital is engaged in religion.

JoelinPDX

I don’t think I want you, VP, deciding what is or isn’t nominal. Somehow I think you are just a bit too biased to be making this kind of ruling.

valley person

Would you trust justice Sclalia? Because I’m pretty sure he wrote the decision.

I concur, valley person. The present issue isdifferent from the Supreme Court case. In the present case, religious organizations have chosen to enter the secular marketplace to hire labor of all religious outlooks. Religious leaders who are confident of a court ruling in their favor should be aware that it is very difficult to predict with accuracy how the court will rule on a given case.

David Appell

Bob wrote:
“But putting religion aside, requiring citizens to buy coverage and
services they don’t require…transgender sex operations….”Who says this isn’t required? I have a difficult time imagining why someone would undergo such a drastic operation is they didn’t firmly believe that, for them, it was “required….” Moreover, due to genetic science we now know that a small fraction of people are neither “female (XX)” or “male (XY),” but something else. As they still face enormous pressure to conform to society’s traditional gender expectations, such operations may be necessary for the very foundation of their mental health.

This is a medical question, not a tax or insurance policy question.

Anonymous

Birth control is a powerful force for anti-abortion that prevents untold numbers of abortions every year. President Obama has come up with a face-saving compromise that protects women’s rights to health care regardless of where they work. Outside, that is, direct church employment by dissenting churches. The talk about conscience is much overblown. The Catholic Church has a long history of pragmatic compromise and an equally long history of entering the marketplace to obtain paid labor for its far flung activities. Some friction is to be expected.

Workinggirl

I need free health care and I need free birth control as I do tend to sleep around a lot. The last thing I need is a baby.

3H

It’s probably best to keep your fantasies and misogyny to yourself.

Chana Cox

I think it might be helpful to look at what sorts of role religiously based social service organizations and schools play in our communities. In almost all instances they provide needed and valued services to people of all faiths. They also provide consumers and citizens with choice. Virtually all the hospitals in Portland were founded by religious institutions. In many of our cities Catholic parochial schools are the most popular alternative to public schools for our urban poor. They teach kids well. Sixty percent of the adoptions in Massachusetts were being handled by the Catholic adoption agencies. Now they are no longer doing adoptions because of state imposed mandates which violate Catholic teachings.

This recent Obamacare mandate is only one of the many ways the increased bureaucratization of our government is putting greater and greater financial and moral burdens on non-governmental non profit social service organizations.

crabman34

Where are these upstanding conscience-protecting bishops and leaders in opposing the use of their tax dollars for other things that the Catholic church opposes, like capital punishment or unjust wars? I’m pretty sure the bible disagrees with collateral damage killing of Iraqi innocents (I’m talking the women and children accidentally killed in war, not insurgents). They are being forced to violate their consciences every day when their individual taxes are used to fund war and capital punishment, among other things, but they don’t make a peep. Must be because this time it involves sex, and lady parts. Oh my!

The fact is, in a pluralistic society you don’t get everything you want, even if you have an ancient bound fairy-tale about a man in the sky that dictates what you do and don’t do/want. Sometimes you get accommodations, like tax-exempt status, other times you don’t, like when you want to restrict the insurance coverage of your secular employees.

Churches are already exempt, and I think that is fair enough so far as as it goes as they tend to only hire people within their religion anyway. Large religious institutions like universities and hospitals can’t do what they do without hiring outside their religion, making them first participants in a pluralistic society and second religious.